Where Kennedy dreamed, Johnson achieved

On any measure bar retrospective acclaim, Lyndon B Johnson was a far superior domestic president than his predecessor, ushering in the civil rights and welfare reforms that have since been taken for granted, writes Chip Rolley.

So you think you've seen and heard enough now about the 50th anniversary of the death of John F Kennedy? Enough of the Texas School Book Depository, the "fateful day", the "city of hate", and the only place on earth where a rise in a road embankment is referred to as a grassy knoll?

Sorry, but there is a little unfinished business.

Last Friday was not just the 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK. It was also the 50th anniversary of the swearing in of Lyndon B Johnson. This is always overlooked and, as result, so is the extraordinary domestic legacy of America's 36th President.

Perhaps it's because I'm a native son of Texas that I'm a little sensitive to this.

Or perhaps it's because on any objective measure of progressive politics, the presidency of LBJ far outstripped the presidency of the man whose legacy seems to be even more exaggerated with every passing year.

Perhaps also there is more at stake here than merely comparing the success of one dead president to another. For too long now we have held one up as a model president at the expense of the other, and in so doing have rewarded celebrity over substance, propaganda over reality, unfulfilled promise over pragmatic accomplishment.

These things matter. They go to what it is we value, what it is we expect a president (or indeed a prime minister) to do.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

For 50 years the Kennedy propaganda machine has been telling us what he was likely to have done had he lived, but rarely if ever facing up to how little he did while he was in office.

Part of the work of that machine has been to cast Kennedy favourably in contrast to his successor. For many in the American eastern establishment, LBJ was illegitimate - there only because the real president had died and who, according to some among the conspiracy set, might well even have been involved in the assassination.

In fact, you don't need to look to the tinfoil hat brigade to find a seething distrust of and in some cases disgust with Johnson. For a substantial number of Americans, LBJ has always been the crude, farting (yes, sadly, he was known to let one loose in the presence of his advisors), corrupt pretender to the throne whose presidency is synonymous with America's supposed end of innocence and lapse into the disgrace of Vietnam.

Part of this is Johnson's fault. He cast his own presidency as a caretaker of Kennedy's even as he substantially recast the agenda, moving civil rights and poverty programs to the fore.

Reflecting on his presidency in 1971, he said:

I considered myself the caretaker of both his people and his policies ... I did what I believed he would have wanted me to. I never wavered from that sense of responsibility, even after I was elected in my own right, up to my last day in office.

This might be false humility (and a sharing of the blame with Kennedy for Vietnam, a part of Kennedy's and Eisenhower's agenda even if he took it up with what can only be described as a fair amount of gusto).

But there should be no doubt Johnson wanted to be remembered as a great president. The alacrity with which he opened his first presidential library - just two and a bit years after his term came to a close, and nine years before JFK's - is perhaps one sign that he wanted historians wasting no time in getting to work on the building of his legacy.

The 1,000 days of the JFK presidency was enough time for him to have used the office to do what he'd set out to. He had already reached the point of least efficacy in a presidential first term - when presidents must build, not spend, political capital. Let's remember why Kennedy was in Dallas in the first place. He was in re-election mode, and by no means assured of victory. Texas had threatened to turn against him. The trip was meant to shore up support.

While Kennedy advocated action on civil rights and poverty, he was anaemic in delivering them. In slightly anachronistic American parlance, Kennedy talked the talk, but didn't come anywhere close to walking the walk.

Take civil rights. The popular wisdom is that Kennedy ran out of time and Johnson merely implemented his agenda (helped by the gift of national unity in the wake of the assassination).

The truth is more complicated. Both Kennedy and Johnson knew that civil rights legislation would have a devastating impact on the political fortunes of the Democratic Party in the south.

But their approach to this knowledge could not have been more different. Kennedy let that fear control his actions. He acted to protect civil rights, but no more than Eisenhower before him.

In fact, his caution placed him on the wrong side of history. If Martin Luther King had listened to Kennedy and not marched on Washington, then that memorable "I have a dream" speech would not have been made.

Johnson, on the other hand, a week after the Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, when state and local police attacked voting rights protesters with billy clubs and tear gas, went to Congress to ask it to pass a bill enshrining Voting Rights.

This was Johnson's second try at voting rights. Congress stripped voting rights provisions out of the Civil Rights act Johnson secured in the wake of Kennedy's assassination (as sure a sign as any that the assassination had not made these issues a cakewalk for the new president).

In his remarkable speech, Johnson placed the African-American struggle for equal rights in the wider context of the American struggle for liberty. In adopting the movement's most prominent slogan, no one would be left wondering if there was any space between his views as a Southern Democrat (synonymous at the time with restrictions on African Americans) and the civil rights movement:

Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

Johnson also linked civil rights to the alleviation of poverty for black and white Americans, the policy area what would become the other great achievements of his presidency.

One is hard pressed to find any great domestic achievement from Kennedy's thousand days. Both the Peace Corps and rejuvenation of the space program had Cold War foreign policy objectives at their heart. His historic peaceful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis (again foreign policy) came in the wake of the disastrous foray into the Bay of Pigs, a failed CIA invasion of Cuba which gave the USSR licence to place the missiles in Cuba that led to the later crisis.

Johnson used the moral authority of his background in poverty-stricken rural Texas to anchor his domestic policy achievements. He pushed through a raft of legislation that not only dwarfs Kennedy's legacy but makes him second only to Franklin D Roosevelt among reforming 20th century presidents.

Head Start (1965), a child development program for poor school children

Economic Opportunity Act (1964), establishing programs such as Work Study, the Job Corps

Appointed the nation's first African American justice on the Supreme Court

National Endowment for the Arts: While the Kennedys had Pablo Casals play for them at the White House, Johnson established the government's peak arts funding body

National Endowment for the Humanities

The tragedy of Johnson's presidency is that he is remembered more for escalating Kennedy's war in Vietnam than for the way he transformed the lives and prospects of millions of disadvantaged Americans.

But we should not let our grief about the assassination blind us to the accomplishments of the man who assumed the mantle and used it to far greater domestic effect than Kennedy could ever have dreamed of.

Chip Rolley is editor of The Drum online. Born and raised in Texas he has lived in Australia for over 20 years. View his full profile here.

Ataraxia:

Nell:

Chip made a very careful distinction in what he wrote and restricted it to Johnson's domestic policies as set against the lionising of Kennedy.

I congratulate him for correcting the historical record in order to defend the Johnson legacy.

I have no doubt that he would know that he goes where angels fear to tread in relation to the perception Australian baby-boomers might have of Johnson. And again, we must be fair.

We often have had that cringing feeling at the fawning obseqiousness of several of our Prime Ministers over time. Who could forget the "Deputy Sherriff" remarks of John Howard? All of it set against the backdrop of US Foreign policy and that's a whole other story.

sean:

26 Nov 2013 8:13:50am

"Who could forget the "Deputy Sherriff" remarks of John Howard?"

John Howard didn't make that remark, George Bush said it and John Howard then tried very hard to play down the comment - because obviously it was never going to play well locally. Bush really put him in it there, given that 10 years later, some Australians are crediting Howard with the omment.

sean:

Mitor the Bold:

25 Nov 2013 8:24:42pm

Kennedy almost got us all annihilated with the Bay of Pigs debacle - and we were saved from the Missile Crisis by Khrushchev's decision to stand down rather than by Kennedy's decision to not blink: he would have blinked when the flashes came.

LBJ did escalate the Vietnamese War but Kennedy started it. The reality is that in the USA at the time Congress didn't even regard many of its own citizens as fully human, let alone funny-looking foreigners in faraway lands: they were simply chips on the game board of Cold War Risk. You have to be a human to inherit human rights and at the time that term had a very narrow definition in the USA.

Greyarea:

26 Nov 2013 8:18:55am

Mitor, you are believing the US/Kennedy clan propaganda here. Kennedy did blink - he pulled the medium range missiles out of Turkey as a deal to get the missiles out of Cuba. And required the Soviets to shut up about it as part of the deal, so he did not look weak domestically.

Sentri7:

firthy:

26 Nov 2013 12:38:20pm

fair call. Bay of Pigs was inhereted from the previous regime. Kennedy took the flak for it (as he should have - ultimately the call was his) but he never made the mistake of trusting the CIA on such issues again.

Science-Lover:

26 Nov 2013 11:49:46am

Mitor, The Bay of Pigs incident was the Military Machine's doing. They lied to Kennedy about what was going to happen and when it blew up in their faces, they blamed Kennedy for it.Kennedy saved us from WWIII because he contacted Khrushchev and they made a deal. Khrushchev was also afraid of the Military machine behind him.Kennedy was a man of peace, like most people who ACTUALLY fought in a war, rather than the ones who warmed their rear ends and, like Cheney, et al., love war.

Rhonda:

ty:

26 Nov 2013 2:32:00pm

Damn right, Kennedy didn't save the world by not blinking even though he thought so as did pretty much everybody for years.Well worth watching The Fog Of War a doco about Robert McNamara where he states that even he thought Kennedy won by not blinking until his meeting with Castro many years later.

Castro told McNamara that he (Castro) was demanding Russia nuke the US as the result of the Bay Of Pigs knowing that Cuba would be BBQd as a result but Khruschev would not do it.You can hear McNamara say it from his own lips in the doco.

Jo G.:

Science-Lover:

25 Nov 2013 8:06:11pm

I've just read a story in the latest Rolling Stone Mag.Written by Bobby Kennedy Jnr. (why can't they come with new names).The Military were pushing for nuclear strike on the Soviet Union while they still had the upper hand.

Khrushchev had the same problem with the soviet military machine.

They lied to Kennedy about what would happen in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and Kennedy had to take the blame.Kennedy refused to let the Military bomb Laos when the population revolted against the CIA installed leader.JFK was against putting troops into Vietnam because he saw that the French was being humiliated by an enemy that was there but unseen.LBJ was a puppet of the Military Machine.

After reading the article, it made me think how strange it was that Washington brought Lee Harvey Oswald back from Soviet Russia. Possibly brainwashed.An interest quote from the article:"during the Cuban missile crisis, my father told the Soviet Ambassador that JFK was worried the Military would overthrow him and seize power".

Mitor the Bold:

25 Nov 2013 8:29:18pm

Imagine what would have happened if they'd had the wise counsel of GW Bush during that fraught period. We're all lucky it was a Democrat rather than a Republican with his fingers on the launch codes. The only difference between a Republican president and a military one is the uniform - psychologically there's little to distinguish them.

firthy:

26 Nov 2013 12:40:56pm

Don't be so silly. Eisenhower was a Republican and a former general and he didn't act the way your suggesting. Even Nixon didn't although as far as I understand it he had to be talked down from taking such action a couple of times by Kissenger.

old67:

Zeb:

26 Nov 2013 6:53:13am

Actually Its a nice break from 'asylum seekers' & 'marriage equality', 'global warming (sorry, that's climate change now isn't it!) which is all the media in Australia can focus on these days. And they wonder why newspaper sales are through the floor...

Ah, back in the day there were real issues to discuss....! Like a potential WW3 and nuclear annihilation, communism...things that could affect the entire population and not just sub 1% of the population!

MJLC:

25 Nov 2013 4:41:56pm

Anybody else spot the eerie similarities with recent-times Australia - a fagged-out old right-winger replaced by a bright and shiny new young thing who was more sparkle than substance. The new kid gets assassinated (Ok - it turned out our guy had more of a black knight flesh wound, but stick with me here) and his deputy replaces him and does a whole lot of useful, far-reaching stuff whilst using up capital (political in the case of the U.S., just plain old capital here). Finally, a sleazy-looking right-winger takes over after the Golden Age and sends the country down the toilet. My guess is if Bill Shorten has ever farmed peanuts for a living we could end up with a long period of Liberal rule starting in 2019. Probably wise to stay away from Australian embassies during his upcoming time on deck as well.

Monty B:

25 Nov 2013 7:59:56pm

The polls suggest Abbott will be remembered as the most negative opposition leader who over promised on silly, undeliverable slogans and placed his party in the catch 22 position of either knifing him, in favour of Turnbull thus opening them up to cries of hypocrisy, or losing after a rare one term stint.

Arthur Putey:

26 Nov 2013 10:13:52am

Thanks, MJLC, that's a clever and amusing analogy.

To take it a little further, in your parallel universe, Keating "is" Harry S Truman - and if you saw PJK on ABCTV last week, you'll know that our Paul had a certain fondness for what he dubbed Truman's "doctrine of massive retaliation"! Also, Gillard of course didn't re-contest her House of Reps seat, just as LBJ chose not to seek re-election in '68...

And at the risk of stating the obvious, the truth is that while Nixon did terrible things, he was also a very intelligent guy who achieved much that was good - including visionary diplomacy (think China as well as the USSR) AND the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)! For those two things alone - three if you include intelligence - it's extremely unfair to Nixon to liken him to Abbott!

Dino not to be confused with:

Dave:

25 Nov 2013 5:03:05pm

Kennedy had the unfortunate impediment of being dead. We can't possibly know what he would or wouldn't have done had he not been killed. Any amount of supposed revisionism is only matched by the author's wild speculation.

MJMI:

25 Nov 2013 7:54:50pm

I don't agree that the speculation is so wild. This description of what LBJ achieved bears close examination. Kennedy's achievements, on the other hand, were pretty light on. His speeches were great but fine rhetoric becomes empty if, to quote the author, "he didn't come close to walking the walk" on civil rights.

rockpicker:

25 Nov 2013 5:03:25pm

Except that he was putting in place Kennedy's ideas. We can't know this, because Kennedy never had the chance. He was potential. When you praise LBJ though you need to remember the word Vietnam. I don't think LBJ comes out of that one too well. to me he will forever be associated with waste and destruction, lies and deceit. LIke those mongrels who ran South Vietnam were deserving of anything but a noose? Must be the Texas air. Bush supported anyone no matter how vile.

Hudson Godfrey:

25 Nov 2013 5:13:24pm

It could be argued that both Fraser following Whitlam and Johnson following Kennedy took permission to finish the job their mercurial predecessors inspired.

They each also did some regressive stuff outside of social policy in which it seemed neither were particularly interested. But it is hyperbolic to say of Johnson ".... greater domestic effect than Kennedy could ever have dreamed of", because Kennedy clearly did dream of all those things. If anything the progressive label JFK wore would have caused him to exercise more restraint.

R U Serious:

25 Nov 2013 5:13:51pm

All the way with LBJ, Hey!! The tragedy of Johnson's presidency is the alacrity with which he escalated the conflict in Vietnam dragging lapdog Australia along for the carnage. It was a complete tragedy because the Americans deferred restructuring their wartime economy and to this day continue to use munitions manufacture and military service as an economic base. Not just the Vietnamese would disagree with Chip's positive analysis, the Americans have caused great harm with their need for conflict in their so called National Interest.

Science-Lover:

stephen:

25 Nov 2013 5:18:08pm

Domestically, then, LBJ, who was Kennedy's other half when K. was president, and who obviously would have been privy to the workings of government and policy implementation without taking any personal risk, now found himself at the controls and, as you say, was protector of K.'s legacy.But your point is clear, that Kennedy was dumbfounded in action ; his ideals remained that, and part, if not most of the reason why is, I think, because LBJ, by contrast, (and as a conclusion of own perceptions, and after the fact, too) felt the need to complete something ; this is, of course, a great moment of instinct on his part - and not excluding the notion that Kennedy's real political intentions were likely reasoned with his 2nd in command anyway. Kennedy was part of a family clan, too, and such a tighter circle of 'democracy' may have inhibited his effectual domestic ambitions, (such efficacies would have been felt closer to the bone, and after Cuba, K. may have been terrified of shadows.)

Cuba was a group think, and we should all be grateful for the Kennedys not being just one.

Christine:

F:

25 Nov 2013 5:20:06pm

Mmmm ... Johnson was probably the best domestic policy president the US has had since WW2. In many ways he was another Roosevelt ... where Roosevelt initiated the New Deal, Johnson's achievements were just as important and probably a lot more far reaching in terms of successive generations. That said, he used the Kennedy mystique ruthlessly ... especially early in his term ... to sell his policies to Congress.

On Vietnam, Johnson was saddled with obligations ... but was never a great foreign policy president. He tended to believe the simplistic arguments of the hawks ('the domino theory', the evil empire, those dirty commies) and the militarists, to the exclusion of, shall we say, more moderate voices. Hence he up-scaled the conflict from almost Day 1 of his presidency based on a childish and relatively uncritical analysis of the likely consequences of said involvement ... and left the US deep in the bloody mire as a result.

Not his fault ... he was a product of his times and essentially a domestic politician with a strangely insular mind-set and world view. He was incapable of seeing the rest of the world as something distinct from the USA, and acknowledging that others may have had the same nationalist and social yearnings that he had as an American patriot.

Finally, Johnson and Vietnam have to be seen in the context of the triumphalism of winning World War 2, a virulent McCarthyism and anti-communism that persisted in the early 60's USA, and actually had little application to Vietnam, the wonderfully tactical (rather than guerrilla) Korean War that played to American and UN military strengths that had been relatively successfully ended a decade before ... and everybody at the time thought the whole problem was going to be one of logistics and tactics (at which the US excelled).

It may have paid Johnson (and earlier Kennedy) to look at what actually happened to the French in Vietnam, and not to take the example of the envelopment and tactical action of Dien BenPhu to heart ... as it was atypical of the French experience, and that war in general. If they had read Mao's Little Red Book, and understood the writing of Sun Tzu they may have been better prepared for Vietnam than they actually were.

Instead, all they saw was that ex-colonial Vietnam was a divided county backstopped by China, supplied by the Soviet Union, in much the same way as Korea had been 10 years before ... and that simplistic analysis was what caused all the later problems.

Chris L:

25 Nov 2013 5:22:53pm

Legislation to protect and/or provide for those most in need is not sexy. As mainstream as it becomes, as oblivious as we can be when walking out of a public hospital having our health needs met by the state, it's just not something we'll spend time appreciating.

Indeed, the many achievements of Gough Whitlam in dragging this country into the modern era tend to be forgotten in favour of the circumstances of his removal (Liberal party dominated senate refusing to pass funding).

gerard oosterman:

25 Nov 2013 5:24:13pm

I wasn't aware of the LBJ's achievements as listed in this article. I know that after the war when Europe was on its economic knees, the US Marshall plan helped Europe recover from the war.It was also the time Coca Cola rolled its trucks into every European school and introduced a 'free coke' to every child. This drink, together with the Big McDonald now threatens world health.No matter how we would wish for an American front line innovation on welfare and social equity, I only see a large opposition to welfare still firmly entrenched in the American psyche. The struggle with Obama Care, the toting gun culture. Perhaps the world needs another LBJ?

red rooster:

26 Nov 2013 8:48:12am

Thats strange gerard, I was at school in those days and I don't recall any free coca cola. In fact it was inn the late 50's when it became more widely known and available, but that was in Liverpool England.

gerard oosterman:

26 Nov 2013 9:39:28am

Coca cola has been around since the late 1890's. The roll-out into European schools was during the late 1940's early 50'. The drink still had about three leaves of the coca plant in concentrated form in each bottle.Today, many schools and universities have banned the sale Coca Cola on the premises.

AGB:

Not only did Johnson preside over the disastrous conflict in Vietnam, he completely failed the only policy area he truly cared for: providing quality education to all.

Vietnam cost not only lives and prestige. In his zeal to out-hawk the Republicans, Johnson diverted sorely needed resources from education and healthcare to escalate a war that presented neither a clear nor present danger.

John51:

25 Nov 2013 5:38:06pm

Chip, I think you miss the point. I don't think President Johnson had any other option than to continue down the civil rights path. With President Kennedy's assassination, rightly or wrongly this was seen as the direction Kennedy had already started the country down. To do otherwise would have been seen as going against his legacy and with it Johnson's own future legacy.

This is not to say that the need to act had not been an agreed action by both Kennedy and Johnson before his assassination. Because as we know with the March on Washington the need to act on civil rights was not just being pushed by the black community. There was also a growing white push even if mainly in the north.

And of course the shooting of Martin Luther King and the wider reaction about it in America would have made it doubly difficult not to act. When you look at both the United States and Australia the 1960's was pushed by a groundswell of people to act on racial rights.

If Kennedy had been alive to finish his two terms he would have been a part of that 1960 civil rights wave of change and that is probably why he is so linked to it. Because of what could have been his legacy if he had not been assassinated. Those could have beens have a lot of influence on how Kennedy is remembered.

And the problem with President Johnson, LBJ, is that he is more remembered for his Vietnam legacy of escalating America's involvement in that war. That memory tends to overshadow his domestic legacy. And that is not really surprising. If he had not escalated America's involvement in the Vietnam war his legacy would no doubt be very different.

Cal:

25 Nov 2013 6:07:05pm

I'm glad you wrote this article, Chip. Johnson cared about, and dealt with, many of the United States' domestic problems. These problems, especially the ever-growing divide between rich and poor, appear to have been placed in the "too hard basket" by his successors, both Democrat and Republican.

Mycal:

25 Nov 2013 6:10:44pm

LBJ gave us an unwinnable war in VietnamLBJ gave the Americans "the great society" that failed.Americans went to the moon for JFK

Yes his domestic record is outstanding, but LBJ fails in the charisma stakes. To me it seemed like hubris at the time, when Washington under JFK was compared to Camelot, now, 50 years on I was struck by the fact of just how much I regreted, not so much his assassination, but what might have been. Like Camelot, it is the hint of futures lost, the shadow play of possibilities and the way in which it ended, that makes JFK a modern day folk tale. Some of his speeches are now part of the English language. Most people know the meaning and the metaphor of "Ich bin ein Berliner", most people recognise the phrase ""ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." I could go on but I won't, the point I wish to make is simple. Compared to LBJ the only phrase that comes to mind is "all the way with LBJ" hardly inspiring.

LBJ did a lot for Americans, but it was on the agenda anyway. JFK lead Americans, inspired them and gave the rest of us pause to wonder why our politicians couldn't do the same for us.

You may say that the vision thing is not as important as bread, but some one else once said that "man cannot live by bread alone". Under JFK Americans didn't have to but they had the bread anyway.

hph:

OUB :

Captain Sensible:

25 Nov 2013 6:40:00pm

A good article. LBJ has never been on my list of great US Presidents, but he was above Kennedy in the 'also rans' and this article supports the rating.

Kennedy's presidency from mafia-funded and corrupted election victory to his death has been polished, promoted and pumped up to make a legend. Had he not been in Dallas that fateful day he may well have suffered a fate similar to Nixon - if not worse as the scandals multiplied.

LBJ was steered down the wrong course with the expansion of the Vietnam war and his legacy suffered as a consequence (along with thousands of Americans and Vietnamese) - that aside, he was an excellent president - free of much of what afflicted this predecessor and successor to the role.

Robert:

stop the goats:

25 Nov 2013 8:03:31pm

If Johnson was so concerned about civil and human rights, why did his government not do more to release the documents that would reveal the truth about the assassination of JFK? Why did he order the JFK limousine to cleaned and rebuilt immediately following the assassination? What about the Kennedys rights to know who was really responsible?And where were Oswalds human rights to a fair trial, not trial by media, even posthumously? Please don't say Johnson believed the Warren Commission horse sh*t.

David Ferstat:

25 Nov 2013 8:04:14pm

It's sad that there are so few respondents to this article prepared to thank the author for educating them.

Mr Rolley, thank you for your article, While I was aware that Johnson had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress, I had no idea at all that so many other worthwhile laws were enacted under his watch. The list makes for sobering reading.

Whatever Kennedy might have done had he lived, whatever Johnson might have done off his own initiative, whatever Johnson failed to do, the fact remains that Johnson passed many progressive laws, and Americans are better off for them.

A re-examination of Johnson's legacy, and reputation, is clearly in order.

Sack:

25 Nov 2013 9:07:38pm

"It's sad that there are so few respondents to this article prepared to thank the author for educating them."

David, when I post on The Drum, and nobody replies, I take it as a compliment; an assertion that I have not said anything too stupid or controversial. I do hope that Chip takes it in the same vein. (I did find it to be an informative article.)

Sixer:

Daniel Dennis:

25 Nov 2013 9:06:19pm

I remember what I was doing in 1962 the week that Kennedy almost killed me. The brinkmanship over Cuba was one of the many examples of Kennedy the coldest of cold war warriors. The author of this article is stating the pricciple fact of the respective records - the 35th president was all style, the 36th was substance. The Peace Corps and the Test ban Treaty were Hubert Humphrey's ideas ("Hubert, this is your treaty," said Kennedy when he signed it). LBJ by contrast was the greatest legislator ever to sit in the White House. In a triumph of style over substance that pretty well charts the direction of modern politics in the television era, Kennedy has soared and Johnson has suffered an eclipse thathas been total (he scores only 2%, along with Gerald Ford, as the man AMericans would most like to see reprise their presidency). Yet Johnson delivered. Crucially, Kennedy talked about de-segregating the US, came no-where near enacting the laws to do so, and was concerned not so much about splintering the New Deal coalition by losing the south and blue collar northern votes (too long term for JFK) but placating the right wing candidate that everyone knew would be thehis likely challenger in 54, Barry Goldwater. LBJ was a flawed giant, Kennedy a non-descript congressman and senator who is famous for being famous.

Interested:

25 Nov 2013 9:13:36pm

I had the chance to visit the LBJ ranch in Texas for a couple of hours earlier this year - it's now a State Park, beautiful countryside, fat cattle, Johnson family graves under a grove of trees. The one teacher school Johnson attended as a four year old is still there. LBJ trained as a teacher when he graduated from high school and went on to become the principal of a Mexican American school before entering politics. During his presidency, I understand he put through more education bills than any other president, with a large number focussing on attempting to address the educational disadvantages faced by the poor. What a shame he is mainly remebered for his role with the Vietnam War, without the counterbalance of his role in improving the lives of the disadvantaged in America.

R Supwood:

25 Nov 2013 9:27:48pm

Domestically, the legislative record of Kennedy is well below Eisenhower, Johnson, FDR. As Kennedy was a failure at foreign policy, family and marital status, finance and social policy, he remains a kind of promising movie cultish figure of admiration.

Waterloo Sunset .2014:

25 Nov 2013 9:28:40pm

The Kennedy assassination: I remember being in the common room at school doing my homework, around 6, or 7 in the evening. We weren't aloud to talk during 'prep'. However, one of the 'naughty' boys had a radio and was listening to Radio Luxembourg, with an earphone and suddenly announced the news. Of course, we used it as an excuse to disrupt the 'homework', as Kennedy was the only icon that we knew, apart from Buddy Holly, The Beatles, DH Lawrence, The Rolling Stones, Mallory and Chaucer.

We weren't too bothered with America and Americans at that age and time, in England. However, I do remember a fuss from Johnson about Leyland selling motor vehicles to Cuba.

ram:

25 Nov 2013 9:32:31pm

LBJ certainly debased America's currency. It used to be backed by silver, during LBJ's reign it came to be backed by nothing. Could be why that now the US dollar has less than 5 percent of the buying power it had then.

RagingGolo:

26 Nov 2013 12:38:21pm

So, you can't see any problem with pegging money to a commodity?

No?

The price of commodities, be they silver, gold or uranium, fluctuate. Sometimes they fluctuate a lot. What happens to the value of money when that happens? That's right, you need to sell or buy said commodity to keep the value where you want to.

As you can tell, this can be a massive drain on reserves, which was part of the problem with this system.

That's commodity-pegged money out of the way. Money that isn't pegged to commodities have value, based on how much of it there is around and its functions - A medium of exchange, a store of value, a unit of accout and (depending on who you ask) a standard of deferred payment.

If these functions break down, for example, if people refuse to accept money in large numbers (so the medium of exchange function breaks down)... then fiat money is worthless, as you imply.

TC:

25 Nov 2013 9:43:35pm

Chip, you shoud read 'JFK, Why he died and why it matters' by James Douglass for a better perspective on the man Kennedy was - a man who was an independant thinker and who was the right man for President in the early 1960s when the war hawks of the industrial-military establishment were pushing for war with the Soviets and an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy had also realised the futility of a ground war in Vietnam and the stupidity of engaging in a civil war -(It's their war, they're the one who have to win it or lose it) The book also makes a convincing case that a conspiracy by the CIA felled Kennedy. LBJ gave the US the Vietnam War which outdoes any of his other domestic achievements. JFK knew that the civil rights bills had to be done when there was popular support by the people - the assassination of JFK helped that to come. Also, maybe you should show the photo of LBJ getting a wink of the senator as he is sworn in with Jackie in her blood stained suit standing next to him - it might not mean anything sinister but it sure was insensitive.

Bob:

25 Nov 2013 10:58:14pm

LBJ stopped the commies in Vietnam. Sure they lost the war in Vietnam but it stopped the commies going further and the free world eventually won. If it hadn't been for the Vietnam war we would all be speaking Russian.

Science-Lover:

26 Nov 2013 12:06:01pm

A very limited view of history there Bob.Ho Chi Minh was a socialist. Vietnam hated China.The United States of Amnesia have never been able to tell the difference between communism and socialism.In fact, Ho Chi Minh had asked the US for help in forming a Constitution for his country.The Domino Theory was put out by the US Military Machine.Vietnam is a communist country now because of the damage done to them by the US."we'd be now speaking Russian"? what a joke.If it hadn't been for the Vietnam war, South-East Asia would be a much better place. You're forgetting the illegal bombing of Cambodia, which brought out the Khmer Rouge ... the illegal bombing of Laos.The list goes on.The world would be a much better place if it wasn't for US intervention in South East Asia, central America. They helped win WWII, but since then they've been bullies that have caused millions of deaths.

crow:

Lachlan:

26 Nov 2013 7:39:01am

Johnson was a highly experienced negotiator and legislator. He knew how to get stuff through congress - even if it meant bending legislative rules that gummed up the system. Johnson never let any deadbeat congressman or arcane legislative rule get in the way of his legislative goals. (This is something Obama and Harry Reid have only just worked out.)

As a result, Johnson passed more liberal domestic legislation than any other President, apart from FDR. He attempted to improve civil rights and made a genuine attempt to alleviate poverty. This record of liberalism still hasn't been beaten, although Obama might get there if the democrats can re-take congress next year.

Of course, this all gets forgotten because of his one big catastrophic foreign policy mistake. I'm glad this article corrects the record.

EMH:

26 Nov 2013 8:02:41am

I was 15 years old when Kennedy was assassinated and in the following years I did realise that Johnson was the better President. I did not however have a great opinion of either of them; there was some good and some bad in them but for me the bad outweighed the good.

I Johnson's case he was certainly the better President domestically, I don't think that can be sensibly contested. His apparent propensity for his LBJ label was a little odd...

Maynard:

26 Nov 2013 8:41:50am

Whilst you are right, however he was human & a flawed genius.The impact of Texans on the world has been out of proportion to their size & farting prowess.And tho Vietnam was a tragedy the US approach of facing communism globally, eventually defeated it.Your most famous general Grant would have understood this but not the failure of your generals there.Compared to academic Obama LBJ is an absolute giant, humanitarian.

Maggi2min:

26 Nov 2013 8:46:30am

From his profile pic, looks like the writer wasn't even born when LBJ was the President or was only in nappies. Yet another writer of history who never lived through what they are commenting on. Sigh..............

hph:

Norman Wisdom:

26 Nov 2013 10:24:38am

American policy, foreign and domestic: Imagine how better the world would be if the USA industrial powerhouse, instead of building billions of dollars worth of bombs, built billions of dollars worth of bridges. 'A life lived in fear is a life half-lived.'

RichardJ:

26 Nov 2013 11:06:44am

Lyndon Johnson's very real achievements should be celebrated and his failings acknowledged. I admire him for his social program post-Kennedy. Many would not have done what Johnson did, even in those circumstances.

Kennedy was a great man, according to those who knew and worked with him. He surprised them all, including Johnson, who clearly came under that spell. This should be acknowledged: Johnson, a very real rival of JFK's, came to admire him enormously. He based his presidency on him. To me, that speaks volumes. Eleanor Roosevelt, a hard marker of democratic pretenders, came to see Kennedy the same way despite early misgivings.

JFK's achievements were also significant. Foremost among them was the solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which required a nuanced balance of hard line and soft diplomatic efforts. This was an existential threat, which Kennedy recognised and defused in an era of Cold War hawks and Eisenhower's escalation of militarism as the solution, not to mention Soviet brinksmanship.

Soldier of Fortune:

Karl:

After all, Edward Gibbon was not a witness to the events he described in 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'.

The passage of time usually allows more information about historical events and figures to emerge, from all kinds of sources.

Incidentally, I read a biography of Johnson that was written back in the 70's by one of his staffers. If not sycophantic, it was quite uncritical its assessment of his achievements, and consequently unconvincing.

hph:

26 Nov 2013 12:13:25pm

General Jack D. Ripper: "Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?"

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: "No, I don't think I do, sir, no."

General Jack D. Ripper: "He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Reinhard:

26 Nov 2013 12:21:14pm

This article really is the antithesis of the "woulda-shoulda-coulda" argument Mr Rolly seems to forget that John F. Kennedy was only in office for two years, and yet in that time he guided the US through the Cuban missile crisis and was keen to pull out of Vietnam after the 1964 election.Mr Rolley appears to be more of an LBJ fan, the "All the way with LBJ" mantra led all the way to a full scale proxy war with China/Russia that cost the lives of millions..

Steve_C:

Chip fails to mention the most important - and clearly most overlooked element in the primacy of JFK over LBJ when it comes to "history's judgement" of both mens' presidencies.

Jackie.

Compared to Lady Bird, Jackie was always going to make sure JFK had the lion's share of the glory. No doubt LBJ also felt an obligation to the glamorous wife of his former superior...

It's always easy though, for 'analysts' to overlook the effect of the women behind the men, when it comes to historical assessment of things that the human mind wishes to credit with more import and impact than they probably should be assigned.

It's almost as if accepting the role of someone like Jackie in "things of such importance" lessens or demeans their historical gravity.

Even the article's byline image of LBJ's swearing in on Air Force One, features Jackie in one of the most prominent positions - maybe even more so than LBJ, given she's even closer to the camera... yet she receives not a single mention: not a single word when it comes to assessing the two men - much like Lady Bird is given no mention in what made LBJ the man and President he was, let alone how history has treated him.

Perhaps the treatment of the two leading ladies is a far more illuminating guide to how and why the two men have received what they have in the subsequent decades since the events took place.

The first ladies' lives and legacy are in their own way a mirror, that shines a light upon history's assessment of the men they married and influenced with their own special and unique qualities and abilities.

firthy:

26 Nov 2013 12:36:43pm

An excellent article. I've read quite a bit about both and Johnson was clearly a much better Domestic President than Kennedy. Unfortunately Vietnam overshadows his legacy when it really shouldn't. I struggle to image any Amercian President dealing with that issue well.

OUB :

Johnson must have been a fascinating person. It seems Robert Caro, a man that doesn't even admire LBJ, will spend almost his entire working life writing the man's biography (up to Part 4 I think).

That grinding poverty he experienced as a child must have gouged deep scores in him and I am happy to believe it shaped his personality, including his boorishness and his concern with social issues. He seems to be the outsider who became an insider. He knew the pressure points he could access to make his Congress compliant. Whether his social reforms were optimal or an overreach bringing about a reaction I cannot say. But I am interested enough to one day read Part 4.

Kennedy I presume was not an insider and tried to work his way around Congress, the long way to go. He sounded fine but that is never enough.

hph:

Melvyn Bowler:

26 Nov 2013 12:44:58pm

What a silly stupid irrational article.

So the thousands of American and Vietnamese lives ruined, maimed and killed were not a domestic issue !

Johnson knew America could not win the war, but was too much of a coward to admit it, and get out. No amount of beneficial domestic policies can make up for the horror of what he perpetrated, both for Americans and Vietnamese.

Hitler is not remembered for full employment and free holidays, but for the devastation he caused to millions. And so should Johnson be remembered, a little man who would rather make war rather than "lose face" and admit defeat.

OUB :

Is the job too big for one man? GWB largely neglected domestic policy after 911. How many Presidents have managed both sides of their job well in difficult times? Arguably Reagan.....

Personally I am not convinced JFK would have been able to retract from Vietnam had he lived. Given the fear of Communism that had been built up over the years I doubt the public would have gone along with it. The Cuban situation would have only intensified those fears.

David Arthur:

26 Nov 2013 1:22:50pm

"The 1,000 days of the JFK presidency was enough time for him to have used the office to do what he'd set out to." Not quite - he was intending to invite the Soviets into what would have become a joint Moon programme.

The question then becomes - would the kudos of a joint Moon programme have stifled Brezhnev's overthrow of Krushchev? If so, then the mid-60's deepening of the Cold War may not have occurred.

DENIS:

26 Nov 2013 1:59:55pm

Nixon wasn't the only president taping all his conversations, meetings and phone calls. For an insight into how an elected leader with some spine goes about turning the tide of political might to his way, it is worth going back to the tapes of Johnson's persuasive style with some heavy hitter Congressional racists in getting civil rights into law. He knew he had been mislead on Vietnam and determined to leave a one term office making some change, he went all out on civil rights and achieved what he determined to do.

Tom C:

26 Nov 2013 3:54:50pm

I have read lot on LBJ. I have been to his ranch(twice) in the beautiful Hills Country of Texas. I saw him in Melbourne. A man with the character of Henry Bolte and Joh Bjelke but fufilled with a vision of America unexpected for a Texan. His early days of stuffed ballot boxes and bribes are an indictment of US voting and its Constitution. But his "Humanity" ovecame all his faults. He certainly ended up walking the talk. A great leader.

Despite deceptive cameras and blurry replays briefly launching a contrived controversy around Virat Kohli's day three dismissal, the second Test in Perth kept rollicking on. Now it's set up to be a classic.